The WSJ Rips MU A New One (Again) Over McAdams

[Tugg Speedman]

The Wall Street Journal

Speechless on Campus
John McAdams sues to keep his tenured position at Marquette.
May 5, 2016 7:21 p.m. ET

http://www.wsj.com/articles/speechless-on-campus-1462490490

We told you recently about Marquette University professor John McAdams, who writes an independent blog called the Marquette Warrior. In 2014 a Marquette student told Mr. McAdams about an exchange in which his philosophy instructor, a graduate student named Cheryl Abbate, told him that his views about gay marriage were homophobic and not open for discussion in her classroom.

Mr. McAdams blogged about the exchange and Ms. Abbate got nasty letters, a result that prompted the school to suspend Mr. McAdams, bar him from setting foot on campus and threaten him with termination unless he admitted by April 14 that his actions were “reckless.” In a letter to Marquette President Michael Lovell, Mr. McAdams declined to do so. (http://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-04-04-Signed-Letter-to-Lovell.pdf)

The University did not rescind its position and Mr. McAdams Monday filed suit in Milwaukee County Circuit Court on grounds that the school has abrogated academic freedoms it guarantees. As a private university, Marquette is not subject to the First Amendment, but the school guarantees academic freedom by contract.

According to the school’s faculty statutes, “dismissal shall not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.” The school says it is acting because Mr. McAdams should have known that his blog would generate criticism of Ms. Abbate, but by that standard freedom of speech is limited by what we can predict others in the online free-for-all will say about what we write.

Universities are meant to be bastions of vigorous debate. When a tenured professor can lose his job because of what strangers on the Internet said, what speech is safe?

[GGGG]

The school says it is acting because Mr. McAdams should have known that his blog would generate criticism of Ms. Abbate,

That is an incomplete assertion.

[Pakuni]

The Wall Street Journal

Speechless on Campus
John McAdams sues to keep his tenured position at Marquette.
May 5, 2016 7:21 p.m. ET

http://www.wsj.com/articles/speechless-on-campus-1462490490

We told you recently about Marquette University professor John McAdams, who writes an independent blog called the Marquette Warrior. In 2014 a Marquette student told Mr. McAdams about an exchange in which his philosophy instructor, a graduate student named Cheryl Abbate, told him that his views about gay marriage were homophobic and not open for discussion in her classroom.

Mr. McAdams blogged about the exchange and Ms. Abbate got nasty letters, a result that prompted the school to suspend Mr. McAdams, bar him from setting foot on campus and threaten him with termination unless he admitted by April 14 that his actions were “reckless.” In a letter to Marquette President Michael Lovell, Mr. McAdams declined to do so. (http://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-04-04-Signed-Letter-to-Lovell.pdf)

The University did not rescind its position and Mr. McAdams Monday filed suit in Milwaukee County Circuit Court on grounds that the school has abrogated academic freedoms it guarantees. As a private university, Marquette is not subject to the First Amendment, but the school guarantees academic freedom by contract.

According to the school’s faculty statutes, “dismissal shall not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.” The school says it is acting because Mr. McAdams should have known that his blog would generate criticism of Ms. Abbate, but by that standard freedom of speech is limited by what we can predict others in the online free-for-all will say about what we write.

Universities are meant to be bastions of vigorous debate. When a tenured professor can lose his job because of what strangers on the Internet said, what speech is safe?

Except that's not at all what happened here.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Are unsigned Op-Ed's normal?  Why do both the McAdams Op-Eds seem to not carry the name of the author?

I think I asked this during the last Op-Ed, so if someone responded and I missed it, I apologize.

[Lennys Tap]

Are unsigned Op-Ed's normal?  Why do both the McAdams Op-Eds seem to not carry the name of the author?

I think I asked this during the last Op-Ed, so if someone responded and I missed it, I apologize.

Yes.

[brandx]

A far right publication lying about how a conservative was picked on.

Lordy, Lordy, never thought I'd see the day.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Yes.

Thanks

[Benny B]

Except that's not at all what happened here.

How so?

This can't be the first time that a professor has publicly criticized a TA, or any student for that matter.  Was McAdams fired simply because he criticized a TA?  Or was it because of the public response/follow to his criticism.  If McAdams wrote the blog and instead the response was overwhelmingly favorable to the TA, do you honestly think McAdams would have been fired?  If McAdams only had two blog followers, neither of whom reacted, and the story died the second after it was published, would McAdams had been fired?

You can agree or disagree with the outcome, but you can't ignore that "strangers on the Internet" played a major role here.

[keefe]

That is an incomplete assertion.

When one equivocates, however slightly, one deviates from the truth.

The op-ed piece defines the essence of the matter.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

A far right publication lying about how a conservative was picked on.

Lordy, Lordy, never thought I'd see the day.

the
WSJ  is a liberal newspaper with a conservative editorial board

[GGGG]

When one equivocates, however slightly, one deviates from the truth.

The op-ed piece defines the essence of the matter.

Yes.  The op-ed deviated from the truth.

[keefe]

the
WSJ  is a liberal newspaper with a conservative editorial board

The key issue is that once again Marquette is cast in an extremely negative light on a very public stage. The specifics are lost on people. The reality is that a foundational publication which shapes the intellectual optics of the world has cast Marquette in a terrible light.

This whole matter could have been avoided but wasn't. A group of bullies abused their authority and attacked a colleague because they didn't like him.

Waiting for Mike Lovell to tweet a blistering retort.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Yes.  The op-ed deviated from the truth.

How so?  The explain the precise reason McAdams was suspended: he identified a TA on the internet and third parties said nasty things to her.

[keefe]

How so?  The explain the precise reason McAdams was suspended: he identified a TA on the internet and third parties said nasty things to her.

Exactly. People here keep adding "yes, buts..." that stray from the essence.

Marquette took umbrage with McAdams' naming Abbate then allowed their own administrators to run roughshod over established procedures as they punished this man, not for justified moral indignation, but spiteful, vindictive retribution.

What made this amateurish was having the CEO of the enterprise engage in a public spitball fight with the aggrieved employee. Truly, truly embarrassing.

[GGGG]

Marquette took umbrage with McAdams' naming Abbate then allowed their own administrators to run roughshod over established procedures as they punished this man, not for justified moral indignation, but spiteful, vindictive retribution.

Actually they followed procedures.  Seriously, it is like you are being willfully ignorant for some reason. 

[GGGG]

How so?  The explain the precise reason McAdams was suspended: he identified a TA on the internet and third parties said nasty things to her.

Because it paints an incomplete picture regarding his past interactions with students in such a manner which he was warned about.  It also doesn't mention that he failed to follow the proper channels regarding how this manner should have been dealt with.

The bottom line is that too many see this as a "freedom of expression" issue.  IMO it is a workplace issue.

[wadesworld]

Because it paints an incomplete picture regarding his past interactions with students in such a manner which he was warned about.  It also doesn't mention that he failed to follow the proper channels regarding how this manner should have been dealt with.

The bottom line is that too many see this as a "freedom of expression" issue.  IMO it is a workplace issue.

Agreed with this whole post. Do you know what the past incidents were that led to the warning(s)?

[GGGG]

Agreed with this whole post. Do you know what the past incidents were that led to the warning(s)?

From Marquette's letter (I bolded a sentence.):

"You have been asked, advised, and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students’ names in connection with your blog posts. In March 2008, you published the name of a student who worked in advertising for the Marquette Tribune after she had declined to run an advertisement highlighting alleged risks from the “morning after” pill. Only after that student contacted you to advise of the impacts upon her and to request you to cease and desist did you delete her name. In March 2011, you published blog posts regarding a student who was helping to organize a campus performance of The Vagina Monologues. Again, the harmful consequences of your unilateral naming of students were pointed out. You acknowledged at that time that publishing student names on the Internet was a matter of concern, but given your naming of Ms. Abbate that acknowledgment from 2011 appears to be without meaning or effect. (p.14)"

[keefe]

Actually they followed procedures.  Seriously, it is like you are being willfully ignorant for some reason.

Did you read the report? The University acknowledged that administrators did not act properly.

I suggest you read the report promulgated by Marquette. Otherwise you will remain blissfully ignorant of the culpability of Marquette administrators in creating the mess that is tarnishing the reputation of our alma mater.

[GGGG]

Did you read the report? The University acknowledged that administrators did not act properly.

I suggest you read the report promulgated by Marquette. Otherwise you will remain blissfully ignorant of the culpability of Marquette administrators in creating the mess that is tarnishing the reputation of our alma mater.

I'm not trying to be difficult here.

But the report was generated via the procedures in place.  The faculty committee made a recommendation.  Lovell accepted it with the condition of an apology.

You can argue that their procedure is faulty.  You can argue that the procedure had a bad outcome.  You cannot argue that they didn't follow their procedure.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Because it paints an incomplete picture regarding his past interactions with students in such a manner which he was warned about.  It also doesn't mention that he failed to follow the proper channels regarding how this manner should have been dealt with.

The bottom line is that too many see this as a "freedom of expression" issue.  IMO it is a workplace issue.

Providing more context would not have changed the underlying principles discussed by the piece and I don't believe the editors "distorted the truth" by focusing on the nuts and bolts.  No matter what McAdams' background, the fact remains that McAdams was essentially fired for the actions of unknown people on the internet responding to his writing.  That is the critical element that makes this a "freedom of expression" issue.

When did the world flip and liberals become the ones unable to countenance free speech? 

[GGGG]

Providing more context would not have changed the underlying principles discussed by the piece and I don't believe the editors "distorted the truth" by focusing on the nuts and bolts.  No matter what McAdams' background, the fact remains that McAdams was essentially fired for the actions of unknown people on the internet responding to his writing.  That is the critical element that makes this a "freedom of expression" issue.

When did the world flip and liberals become the ones unable to countenance free speech? 

I have no problem whatsoever with free speech so you can go build your strawman elsewhere.

The reason I say it is a workplace issue is that he twice did the same exact thing (name a student), twice was warned about it, and twice acknowledged that it was a problem.  Then he did it again.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I have no problem whatsoever with free speech so you can go build your strawman elsewhere.

The reason I say it is a workplace issue is that he twice did the same exact thing (name a student), twice was warned about it, and twice acknowledged that it was a problem.  Then he did it again.

I wasn't aware there was some type of firewall between workplace issues and free speech issues: the two obviously overlap regularly. 

If you are comfortable with universities firing people for what third parties say on the internet and don't see how free speech is implicated, then God help you. 

[WarriorInNYC]

No matter what McAdams' background, the fact remains that McAdams was essentially fired for the actions of unknown people on the internet responding to his writing. 

This is actually not a fact.  This is the assertion that this article is attempting to make.

[GGGG]

No.  I have trouble with faculty members calling out students repeatedly in a blog when they have acknowledged the problem with doing so in the past.

I have trouble with faculty members who don't go through the proper channels in determining the source of the issue at hand.

I have trouble with faculty members turning themselves into martyrs when a University panel determined that he should be reinstated, and the President of the University is follows that recommendation as long as he apologizes to the student.